Trending Content
| +86 | Zoomers are doing life wrong | 27 | 2h | |
| +52 | How to get rid of prestige obsession | 24 | 1d | |
| +44 | How to develop a thick skin? | 22 | 3d | |
| +36 | Analysts & Crying | 13 | 2d | |
| +34 | Insurance as High Finance? | 10 | 13h | |
| +30 | Framed Photo of CEO on desk. | 16 | 19m | |
| +29 | Would you rather live alone in an outer borough or with roommates in Manhattan? | 22 | 1h | |
| +24 | GF doesn’t care about her looks | 21 | 10h | |
| +23 | BO -> ??? | 14 | 3d | |
| +20 | My bank paid out bonuses in Shark Cards. Is this normal? | 9 | 3d |
Career Resources
Was looking to start this thread as well.
For someone of his financial success and who was also the mayor of a major city like NYC I find him so easily flustered and so much less well-spoken than I'd ever imagined. He took a beating last night by everyone and honestly got completely demolished. So many blatant "non-answers" and stuttering.
I recall him saying something along the lines of "I'll address that if I can be allowed my full allotted time" and in my head I was just like "well maybe if you didn't stutter so damn much you'd be able to get a full rebuttal across"
This was the most surprising thing to me. If he was going to attend (he could've used any excuse as he isn't participating in Nevada/SC so no need or something), why wouldn't he have run-throughs where people just slam him with the hardest attacks they can to prepare? Did he really spend $400mm already and not let anyone prepare him with attacks? It gives me the feeling its just yes-men all the way down for him.
He needs to fire his entire staff minus the marketing team. His commercials are excellent. He's taking risks like the meme posters that are interesting if nothing else. His performance last night was shockingly embarrassing.
I don't think he wants to win and there's something else behind him entering the race. I have no idea what it could be, though.
It was definitely surprising seeing someone with a lot of personal success and a real background in politics whiff so hard...
I will hedge this by saying that most voters don't watch the debates and his omnipresent ads are going to be seen far more than his responses will...
...but...
Holy shit was that an absolutely terrible performance. He got torched by the left. He got torched by the center-left. He got obliterated from every conceivable angle.
I can think of only one good point he made, about the environment, one good zinger he gave, about Bernie's millionaire status and three houses, and one good...statement, that he was the only one there to start a business, but other than that it was a complete shit show. His answer on the NDAs in particular was just awful. Warren's opening salvo against him is already being meme'd.
For someone with his political experience, and business experience, and frankly, personal wealth - how could he not hire a team to prepare him better? Part of his entire pitch to be president is that he knows how to assemble the best teams. He should have been grilled in mock debates by his staff and the team collectively should have come up with a whole host of acceptable answers. He is polling 2nd or 3rd nationally and is even leading in Florida. This was his moment to come out of the gate strong and really take the lead from Bernie but he blew it.
This will only help Bernie, which frustrates me to no end. The moderate vote is overwhelmingly larger than the far left vote, but there are too many moderates in the race so none of them seem to be able to win.
I agree with almost everything you said except the last lines. The average voter does not think in ideological lanes. The second choice for the biggest chunk of Joe Biden voters is Bernie Sanders. The second choice of Bloomberg supporters is Joe Biden and then RIGHT behind Biden is.... Bernie Sanders.
Your lane comment is fair. I'm exposing my bias here in that I am explicitly anti-Sanders and would prefer literally anyone else on the stage to him (even Klobuchar, who bombed last night).
538 has him winning the most delegates (albeit not a majority). The amount of candidates still in the race does help Sanders though, because it mathematically prevents someone else from giving him a real challenge. If this comes down to say, three people, by all means he can be beaten and handedly. If it doesn't, and 6-7 people remain, he wins, either outright or in a contested convention.
And I personally believe that if Bernie wins the nominee, Trump wins 2020.
They've also polled head-to-head matchups with Sanders against all other dem nominees one-on-one. He obliterates the edge case moderates (warren he beats by two, Biden by 4), as in he is up double digits against the likes of Pete, Amy, and Bloomberg.
I personally believe that Sanders is by far the best choice against Trump as he polls best in the swing states (other than Florida realistically) and the rust belt. The democrats tried a "moderate" with Clinton and lost the easiest election possibly ever.
But this is what people don't get--the general public isn't paying attention to the race yet. These early general election polls aren't particularly meaningful. In the last 2 months when the general election electorate is paying attention, they will be made aware of Bernie Sanders' ugly, ugly distant and recent history. Bernie Sanders is only a household name in circles that are paying attention to primary campaigns, which is a narrow set of people.
As an aside, there is no way the general election polls are close to accurate. In most, Trump is polling in the low-40s. Trump's personal approval is higher today than on election day 2016 where he polled 46% in the popular vote. There is zero chance--win or lose--that Trump pulls in just 43% of the vote.
The lack of attacks thrown at Bernie, presumably to not anger his cult of supporters in case he doesn't win the nomination, is shocking. He is currently the leader in the polls. He is seemingly going to win Nevada easily.
I understand why everyone wanted to dunk on Bloomberg last night, but to date we've seen the collective get their knives out for Biden, Warren, and Buttigieg (not to mention Harris) but Bernie gets off easily with only a couple of body blows landing.
The man is a hypocrite when it comes to wealth, a deadbeat dad, was a loser the first half of his life, has made outlandish comments in the past supporting oppressive regimes, has abusive supporters online, is 78 years old with a heart attack, and is taking a Trump-like approach in refusing to release his medical records. And it's barely discussed.
Was this a height joke? If so, well played.
Yeah, we agree completely on Bernie. The Democrats are stupid to not attack the frontrunner; the Republicans did the same in 2016 because they were afraid to offend Trump supporters. It's a stupid calculation. If you want to be the king, you gotta attack the current king and seize his throne. Bernie has not been properly vetted, and there's a lot of material to use against him. It will be hilarious seeing the Trump team savage Bernie in the general election.
Hillary lost because she was Hillary, not because she was a moderate. The Democrats still don't get that so many people hate Hillary the individual. It had nothing at all to do with any of her policies. A center left candidate would beat Trump; Bernie will hand Trump the election.
To your last point about too many moderates. I think the party would have been wise to have a stricter standard for who gets on stage so there are fewer people. This isn't the preseason anymore, we're a few states in. Klobuchar has no realistic chance, and I would argue Warren doesn't either. By allowing them on stage, they dilute the discussion. And in Warren's case, she was able to throw death blows at Bloomberg because she in high-risk hail mary mode and can take those risks that otehrs can't . . I don't even think she helped her cause or looked great while tearing him apart, but she hurt him. Net net, not a winning exchange for the party.
Oh I do. She's way too far left for me, but I think she's an impressive person who is clearly intelligent and that was on full display last night. She arguably won the debate.
I suppose I'm not a "progressive" so I don't understand, but I have no idea why someone on the far left would pick Bernie over her.
I didn’t see it, but I heard he was attacked pretty strongly, which is not a surprise—he’s really the odd man out.
But, so many frauds at the highest level pretending to be genuine people when they really just want to ascend to increasing power/wealth, with 0 regards for any social contribution.
You should google some highlights. He was awful.
I said it 6 months ago, I will say it again, he chose the wrong party. He represents the ruling consensus of the past 3 decades and there is simply no appeal for that any longer.
The left has made the norm that if you said something X decades ago that can be considered offensive by the social justice crowd today, you are out. Bloomberg is simply too old to not have committed thought crimes in the past. Of course he got torched. He did deliver one zinger to Bernie, which is an absolute truth that put that snake oil salesman to shame.
Once again, the winner is Trump. If Bloomberg by pouring infinite money wins the Dem primary, many Bernie voters will sit one out in November, while Trump retains 95% of Republicans. We might even see a party split, especially if Sanders comes on top and is stopped by the Dem establishment. If Bernie wins the primary and isn't stopped, then some of the centrists will stay home.
Sweet.
To be fair, Bloomberg has said some shit in the last 10 years that would make a lot of people cringe and has refused to walk a number of them back, but it is frustrating how people aren't given credit for evolving their views with time.
Obama certainly wasn't pro-gay marriage when he first ran for office. His views evolved with the time and he didn't get obliterated for it.
Holding a viewpoint, examining it against the evidence, and changing your view if the evidence doesn't support your initial conclusion is a mark of intelligence, not of "flip flopping."
You are right but the game has deteriorated significantly under Obama's second term and now he's starting to become a victim of it as well: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/11/22/barack-obama-conserva…
He's just lucky he's mostly out of politics.
Nonetheless, you are right. On some things I change my mind radically after 6 months. It's ridiculous that people are not allowed to have chances of redemption.
Watched an interview with Bernie on Phil Donahue from the late 80's and he was proudly a "Socialist." Then he was a "Democratic Socialist" in 2016 and now his supporters are branding him a "Social Democrat." What a joke.
The self-styled "Progressives" in this country despise Democrats and especially "Centrists" who are the new bogeyman. They have no interest in forming a coalition, no interest in compromise, no interest in passing policy. They are leading a revolution of the minority and everyone better hop on board, or else
Here's the thing--I could accept, on its face, that there are "social democrats" in America, and a large contingent. But when you investigate Bernie's past, it's clear that Norway and Denmark haven't been his standard bearer of his social democratic policies. Basically, he has praised and supported countless far-left and anti-American governments throughout his career, without repudiation. I can even accept that young men and women say and support stupid things, and if that's the case I wish he would say so. But he is unapologetic about anything he has said, done, or supported in the past. That's frightening.
I'd bet a goodly amount of money that there is a large contingent of Americans that would support a very free market (as the Nordic countries have) with a social welfare backstop paid for by higher taxes on everyone and strict immigration limits. That's really not what the Sanders camp is proposing--they are proposing social welfare (impossibly paid for by only the rich) with far more restricted markets and open borders. It's the Nordic model turned on its head. That's why I don't accept Sanders' false premise that he is simply advocating for the Nordic model.
If anything, Warren is a better representation of the Nordic model, but her star seems to be falling. We'll see if last night gives her a boost or not.
The "Democratic Socialism" branding is disingenuous marketing. The DSA's mission philosophy and policy objectives are socialist. Their eventual long-term goal is the abolition of private property. They are hoping to use the branding to pull wool over the eyes of the American people.
The Scandinavian countries moved away from the socialist model in the 1980s when it became clear that they were in trouble economically. Their model is capitalism but high taxes and massive social welfare. But there are two important caveats here: first, they have fairly low immigration, and second, they have small homogenous population that is in agreement regarding economic policy and the role of the government. Neither of those facts apply to the United States. Bernie is not just advocating for a socialist economy. He also wants to destroy the energy industry via the Green New Deal and has now moved far left on immigration, arguing for ending deportations, eliminating ICE, decriminalizing illegal entry, and even giving free health insurance to illegal aliens. Insanity.
He was terribly unprepared. There were two easy answers to the question of why he won't release the women from the NDA's:
Best Answer: "I can't even discuss them at all, not even in general terms on this stage, because that alone violates the NDA. Next question."
2nd Best Answer: "I can't release them because they involve accusations against other people, not just me."
Both of those would've been easy escapes and he chose neither.
He got his ass beat on that stage by people who are nowhere near as smart or accomplished as him.
What's amazing is he landed two of the best punches of the night (asking if any of them had started a business, and calling out Bernie for being a socialist with millions of dollars and 3 houses). And even when netted against those two strong moments, he was a total disaster overall. He got stopped and frisked.
I agree that Bloomberg's performance was poor. I was very interested in watching him but probably had my head in the sand regarding how he might perform. I do not think it should be all that surprising that he did not perform well. Wealth, intellect and business success does not necessarily translate into being effective on a debate stage and he proved it last night. In general, I do not think he is a great speaker, which is a big part of the communications skills one needs to be effective in a debate.
He appeared to be unprepared to answer tough questions, which is surprising. Anyone who has followed the news fron the past week could have take an educated guess as to what topics would be raised about him. It is partly Bloomberg's fault and partly his teams's fault. With that said, he was being attacked by everyone and being in that environment can't be easy, especially when it is your first presidential debate . All of the other people have been running for POTUS and preparing for debates for a much longer period than him. He and his team need to learn from the experience and do better the next time. He was fired when he was 39 and then became an extraordinarily successful business person.
He won back to back to back elections though as Mayor. It's not like he's a novice at politics.
True but...he has not run for office in about 10 years. Towards the end of my "baseball" career I had taken off a year and when I came back, my hitting was terrible. I am not sure if he was ever a great debater (Last night was the first time I had ever seen him in a debate).
The dude was heavily supportive of stop and frisk explicitly to surveil and acost minorities. Fuck him.
Ah, knew I'd see a comment like this from WSO's resident black man.
Yes, Bloomberg enacted those policies. But it was the police and their commissioner who abused them. Can't blame Bloomberg for the actions of some racist cops.
You posted anonymously bro? Pathetic.
Did the cops say this?
"You've got to get the guns out of the hands of the people that are getting killed," Bloomberg can be heard saying. "You want to spend the money on a lot of cops in the streets, put the cops where the crime is, which means in minority neighborhoods."
"So, one of the unintended consequences is people say, 'Oh my God, you are arresting kids for marijuana that are all minorities.' Yes, that is true. Why? Because we put all the cops in the minority neighborhoods. Yes, that is true. Why did we do it? Because that's where all the crime is," Bloomberg says. "And the way you get the guns out of the kid's hands is to throw them up against the walls and frisk them."
So he's advocating for the harassment of a huge swath of minorities (85% or so of stop and frisk stops found nothing) because a small percentage of said minorities commit crime. WSO's resident black man, indeed. You anonymous little pussy. But at least you had the balls to reply to my post instead of these sniveling fucks that MS with no rationale behind it.
Is it surprising to you that a black person would have a problem with policies that specifically targeted the black community?
I bet BobTheBaker is anti-redlining too. The nerve!
Perhaps that's true, but why are these same targeted minorities the ones committing a majority of the crimes? Dude didn't create the policy because he hates blacks/latinos, but obviously saw they were disproportionately committing most of these crimes/carrying weapons, drugs, etc.
I've said this once and I'll say it again, the black community's biggest enemy is the black community itself. 100% crab mentality
When you say the "majority of crime" what are you getting at? What percentage of minorities commit crime/murder that justifies all minorities being surveiled and acosted? I've never done anything more than get a speeding ticket, but because some other black guy killed a dude I should be profiled and acosted? There were 16,214 murders in 2018, let's assume half (~8100) were commited by black males. Do you realize there are roughly 15 million black 18+males in America. Think about the idea that 15 million of us should be profiled because 0.05% of us have commited murder (ignoring repeat offenders)...
The biggest problem the black community faces is ignorance, an institutionally repressive "justice" system, and the poverty wrought upon it by hundreds of years of discrimination.
Good lord.
Why not attack the root causes of higher levels of criminality among those populations at that time in New York City as opposed to throwing kids up against walls and unnecessarily surveiling them? Sure, heightening the police state reduces crime on a net level, but at what cost to civil liberties?
The black community's biggest enemy is generational poverty brought on by centuries of slavery followed by decades of both legislated and then "turn the other cheek" discrimination. When you are poor, your life is infinitely harder, and while individuals can boostrap themselves to the top, populations cannot, and in this day and age, it is far less likely in America of all places in general.
could not agree more. he smells like the 1960s democrats my grandparents marched against. I also find it odd that people who are pro stop & frisk are huge supporters of the constitution, yet somehow forget about the 4th amendment
fuck bloomberg and the anonymous analyst.
moved
I have just come to the conclusion that the format of the debates is a terrible platform for informed and intelligent discussion of points.. Each topic deserves at LEAST 20-30 minutes, not just 10 people talking over each other with zings.
As a side note, I kinda wish Bloomberg would own some of the shit he has said, just like Trump.
As a conservative from a blue state, between not voting for Trump or actually voting for Bloomberg would be a tough choice. If Sander's is the democratic candidate then it would make me want to vote for Trump.
This shit won't fly in the democratic party.
I think the 20-30 minutes idea is not as good as people think... the debate was already what... 4 hours? I understand that we need more information than what 90 seconds can provide, but we do have the internet, and every candidate has a great platform to voice their full opinion. For those of us who care to hear more than 90 seconds... the information is there. But for those who would rather just see the high-level arguments and get to know how ALL the candidates interact, the current debate platform is adequate. Not perfect, but adequate.
Certainly seemed ill prepared. Will be interesting to see next couple debates as the stakes increase and other candidates have shown how they plan to attack him. Still pretty early to call this a collapse. He could rebound and people will barely remember this.
What a dumpster fire in the latter half of this thread. Openly have people being saying they hate black people and only 2 people can come and fight that outrageously racist claim? What has this forum turned into? And the fact BobTheBaker has 8 MS for stating a FACT?! Are we really in 2020 America? Or 1955?
the finance industry skews heavily "sheltered white kid"
it should not be a surprise to anyone that there are so many racist pieces of shit here
There's no excuse for sheltered white kids to hate black people though.
Not be exposed to black people? Sure. Not understand the structural difficulties they face? Totally. Literally writing "black people specifically look for handouts and are inherently lazy?" That's pure, white-trash, confederate flag waving horseshit. There's no excuse for it.
i agree, hence "pieces of shit"
not all sheltered white kids are racist pieces of shit, but it is an alt right breeding ground of a demographic
The off topic forum has had a cesspool undercurrent since 2016.
Something specific happened then - just can't put my finger on it...
.
CRE showcased how he's so not racist and how he hates Orange Man. AND THEN EVERYBODY IN THE ROOM CLAPPED!
OOF
Yeah, big OOF outta you last night big guy. What the hell were you thinking?
Trump is going to win a Nixon '72-style landslide.
I think Trump is the favorite, but let's not engage in hyperbole. In 1972 Nixon won 49 states (only lost Massachusetts) and the national popular vote by an insane 23 point margin, against George McGovern. In 19 states, McGovern did not win a single county. Nixon even won rock solid democratic bastions that no Republican has won since: southern Texas, Hennepin county MN, Cook County IL, Orleans County LA, Fulton County GA, Prince George's County MD, Erie County NY, Queens County NY. Amongst the 49 states that Nixon won, his closest state was Minnesota, which he still won by more than 5 points!
Yeah, this election is not going to be 1972.
I'm trying to think of a time when Bloomberg was ever impressive speaking in public for any reason.
I'm drawing a blank. I remember those weather updates he'd give trying to read in Spanish and even those were awful. He also ran against a couple of hacks in the Mayoral elections. He's just out of his depth here; Trump's description of him as a "low energy ball of nothing" was pretty apt.
Folks really do like to elevate folks or assign them skills they don't have simply because they're wealthy. I guess if you hear it enough you start to believe it yourself.
I think there are just certain expectations of a person who has found the amount of success in business and politics as he has. He failed to meet them last night.
Bloomberg is obviously very smart and successful, but I think it's important to place him in context. When he became NYC mayor in January 2002, his net worth was "only" $4 billion. Now he's worth $60 billion. What happened? During his mayoralty, Bloomberg provided massive tax breaks and incentives to financial firms to stay in NYC after the 9/11 attacks. In return, they spent a lot of money on Bloomberg terminal and services. Given that the Bloomberg company is a privately held joint partnership in which Bloomberg himself owns a whopping 88%, one does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out how he got so wealthy.
The Dem debate was hilarious and entertaining. They really came out to fight. Pocahontas was especially fiery, with the passion of a Native American warrior chief. She took Bloomberg to the woodshed over his comments on women and the NDA.
Bloomberg was insanely unprepared for the debate. Not sure if he was so arrogant that he thought he could wing it or whether his debate prep team didn't properly do its job. All the attacks were easily anticipated and relayed by his opponents for the last few weeks. Bloomberg was a great mayor; NYC was safe and prosperous under his leadership while it is now a decaying violent mess under socialist DeBlasio (Bernie supporter). His record for the most part is good, but he can't aggressively defend it because the Democratic Party has moved far left on economic policy, crime, identity politics, culture. At the same time, he does not want to apologize for his record, so his answers on the debate stage were awkward.
What struck me the most is just how far left the Democrats have moved. Obama 08 was a typical center-left campaign, but compared to today's Democrats, Obama was an arch-conservative. Biden's poor primary performance thus far is indicative of the party's desire to move beyond Obama and go even further left. The fact that a lifelong socialist who praised communist regimes throughout his adult life, illustrates this reality perfectly. It was also unreal that the debate audience groaned when Bloomberg attacked Bernie's socialism and praised capitalism. Really? Do these Democrats not understand basic economics and how the real world works?
Ullam at nesciunt quae officia iure laudantium quo explicabo. Sint qui nostrum cupiditate autem quibusdam maiores. Hic eveniet adipisci cumque est est rem debitis. Harum pariatur repellat voluptatem officiis dolorum.
Corrupti atque qui non nesciunt eaque quae ratione sed. Et dolorum adipisci voluptatem architecto. Dolorem ut quod quidem.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Error odit culpa ea est. Nam sapiente at sit alias nam rem consequuntur. Perspiciatis rerum voluptatem qui sunt et et quo. Accusantium eos quidem corrupti tempore provident beatae iste. Necessitatibus sit soluta nobis fugiat.
Est voluptatum aut et sunt repudiandae et est. Aut eius quo qui qui enim et animi. Ea atque quas adipisci maiores blanditiis. Assumenda asperiores nulla quisquam. Quo ipsam aut recusandae.
Tempora vel beatae impedit odio dicta quis alias. Tempora saepe eveniet voluptas quia.
Reiciendis voluptatem soluta rem nulla deleniti quam. Saepe blanditiis eaque possimus. Omnis non dignissimos esse fugit ex. Reiciendis harum et consequatur ut enim velit.
Quisquam neque ea ea minima hic culpa possimus. Illo dolorem molestiae mollitia. Illo voluptatem fugit quae molestiae voluptatem voluptatem eligendi. Est architecto ea iste quas. Reiciendis reprehenderit expedita nostrum dolores voluptatem neque fugit. Autem et quae corrupti maiores.
Illum iure vitae rerum omnis repellat quam ipsum. Quo commodi earum omnis impedit. Laboriosam expedita est rerum dolores ex et aperiam illo.